Poll + Bonus Dev Discussion - Multiboxing

1101113151625

Comments

  • sestrasestra Member
    Are there options to ban it completely? Because i don't see it :neutral:
  • TollanTollan Member
    Multiboxing does not destroy anyone's game experience. It's a choice of some players who want to waste their money as they want too. They bought a product anyway, they do with it as they please . This will not ruin game experience to anyone, this is only a way for some ppl that rather waste money and farm faster then apply as much time as any other hardcore gamer.

    Multiboxing is the same as gifting cosmetics from the game shop to other players or selling them at marketplace. They should be able to be gifted.

    Some players offer others some stuff like this, for being good friends, real life connection and relationships. Many times offer them because they don't have the possibility to buy themselves.

    Is the same as multiboxes, what and how people waste their money is not your concern neither it does you any harm or respect. It's their money anyways and they decide what to buy with it and who offer / sells it too.

    People complain to much about this when this does not destroy or even creat a directly interference with their gameplay.

    There are multiboxes in Warcraft, did it harm my gameplay? No.

    BDO whales bought outfits on the pearlshop and sold it on the market, did it affect my game experience? Lol why should it? I even got 3 outfits from there without wasting my real money. :)

    Actually , this is a very good way to counter gold sellers in MMOs. Placing a NO PAY TO WIN items on a game shopp and allowing them to be sold on Action house / market place.

    I rather see people giving money to the game company and profiting game Gold ( currency ) by selling those items , than giving it to gold farmers. A company with money is a running river. Block the river, life dies.

    To avoid game market to be destroy like this there is an easy way, all the items have a minimum price to place on the market place, if you are too lazy to place them in there , then sell it to any NPC that buy you the item for 5% of its real price.
    So the best profit way is market place and trade with other players.











  • Having to put in effort doesn't make multi-boxing okay and just because you think there isn't a good way to enforce multi-boxing doesn't mean it shouldn't be against the ToS.

    It seems a lot of people know that multi-boxing with scripts and add-ons can harm servers so I applaud Ashes for not allow those two things but let's just not take the chance on giving multi-boxers a green light to find any opportunities to harm servers.

    Let's actually take the step to not let anyone pay additional money for any type of advantage so we can have a true no P2W or pay for convenience MMO.

    1 person 1 account online at a time.
  • SorcresSorcres Member
    I agree with multiboxing from separete computers, because some familly are playing together. But i am scared about people who Have more that one computer and Will be abuse this advantage for your own benefit.
  • Sorcres wrote: »
    I agree with multiboxing from separete computers, because some familly are playing together. But i am scared about people who Have more that one computer and Will be abuse this advantage for your own benefit.

    Multiboxing is one player using 2 or more accounts at the same time. Families all playing together is cool and is not multiboxing.
  • PhilPhil Member
    Having multiple accounts? That's fine. Multiple connections in the same household (different people)? That's fine. Using software to gain an unfair advantage in a game? Get outta here.
  • The only reason i dont like the idea of multiboxing is the server capacity. Guild driven games are packed with people and it would really suck if someone had issues playing with their friends because others are afk fishing on second pc.

    Naturally solution to that is simply making sure no game mechanic lucrative in any way allows such slow gameplay that u can farm on one pc and fish on another
  • siscosisco Member
    Maybe this has been said before but seeing how this game has a lot of similar things from Lineage 2 i hope there aren't any buffer-support only classes that can use their buffs once every 15-30 minutes and then go afk while providing way to many benefits, in lineage 2 there was a thing where classes like prophets, warcryes and so on would just use their skills and then go afk as a box.
  • SudriSudri Member
    Having plenty of active in-game GMs being vigilant for multi-boxing would be the best thing to do on top of additional restrictions. My advice is do NOT have a "/follow" command at all. "Choo-Choo Trains" of players is not good especially for a game that has relies so much on a functional economy. It ruins games and especially economies.
  • FrostduckFrostduck Member
    edited July 30
    sisco wrote: »
    Maybe this has been said before but seeing how this game has a lot of similar things from Lineage 2 i hope there aren't any buffer-support only classes that can use their buffs once every 15-30 minutes and then go afk while providing way to many benefits, in lineage 2 there was a thing where classes like prophets, warcryes and so on would just use their skills and then go afk as a box.

    While its all up to change and its way too early to give you any sort of guarantee, Steven on multiple occasions said that he wants support classes to be VERY active. Proximity buffs rather than targetted ones, positioning, running to sub tank, then next moment sprinting to mages to cast small aoe dps buff etc.

    Summoners are probably the only ones in danger of this, and thats because we know nothing about them, for all we know there might be a spec of them like that for people who like that type of shit. Its not necessarily a bad thing to have a little of in game.
  • XerathXerath Member
    I believe almost everyone believes in and agrees with your stance. The mass concern came about because the thought of 'multiboxing' brings the idea of multiple applications of the game being opened on a single computer. Thank you very much for the clarification. :)
  • 0xFF0xFF Member
    edited July 30
    Kaielogy wrote: »

    multiboxing = opening multiple games, period.
    sending emulated input into ALL of these windows like on clip above = cheating via 3rd party software, OS allows only 1 window to obtain keyboard/mouse input at time, so just one WOW instance above is played legitimately.

    Emulated keyboard/mouse input is trivial for anticheat to detect and if someone manage to run it, he would need to bypass anticheat which will guarantee him ban sooner or later.

    WoW players seems to have flawed understanding of what multiboxing is, if majority of you think it means running 10 accounts scripted to do actions.
  • Gumdrops wrote: »
    I think we need more multiboxing threads

    And this why some of us kept bringing it up...it paid off. *stick out tongue
  • DaRougarouxDaRougaroux Member
    edited July 30
    sestra wrote: »
    Are there options to ban it completely? Because i don't see it :neutral:

    Yes, the one that says you disagree with ANY forms of multiboxing.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member
    If you can eliminate Macro/Scrips that solves most of the concerns I would have with multi boxing. With that said I think the companies original stance on the subject is sufficient.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • DaRougarouxDaRougaroux Member
    edited July 30
    0xFF wrote: »
    Kaielogy wrote: »

    multiboxing = opening multiple games, period.
    sending emulated input into ALL of these windows like on clip above = cheating via 3rd party software, OS allows only 1 window to obtain keyboard/mouse input at time, so just one WOW instance above is played legitimately.

    Emulated keyboard/mouse input is trivial for anticheat to detect and if someone manage to run it, he would need to bypass anticheat which will guarantee him ban sooner or later.

    WoW players seems to have flawed understanding of what multiboxing is, if majority of you think it means running 10 accounts scripted to do actions.

    No. Stop defending this mess. You farm nodes, you control One toon, then set all the others to follow, then when you get to a node you make all of them farm it.

    Economy tanks. No. And a thousand times no.
  • FrostduckFrostduck Member
    edited July 30
    0xFF wrote: »
    Kaielogy wrote: »

    multiboxing = opening multiple games, period.
    sending emulated input into ALL of these windows like on clip above = cheating via 3rd party software, OS allows only 1 window to obtain keyboard/mouse input at time, so just one WOW instance above is played legitimately.

    Emulated keyboard/mouse input is trivial for anticheat to detect and if someone manage to run it, he would need to bypass anticheat which will guarantee him ban sooner or later.

    WoW players seems to have flawed understanding of what multiboxing is, if majority of you think it means running 10 accounts scripted to do actions.

    No. Stop defending this mess. You farm nodes, you control One toon, then set all the others to follow, then when you get to a node you make all of them farm it.

    Economy tanks. No. And a thousand times no.

    If it bothers you that much, just make a guild of many people like minded and hunt those people if they exist. In big part thats why corruption system exists. But i think scripts are supposed to be bannable and its NOT hard to detect scripts.
  • xXBelocXxxXBelocXx Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    Sorcres wrote: »
    I agree with multiboxing from separete computers, because some familly are playing together. But i am scared about people who Have more that one computer and Will be abuse this advantage for your own benefit.

    And see this is the challenge. From a technical perspective if they are two different computers and two different accounts, regardless if they come from the same source IP you have no way to determine if the same person is behind both keyboards or if its two people. So other than detecting repetitive (and I use this generically) keystrokes or other methods to detect "keystroke/macro" programs, people will multibox so I think it is good that a policy is being determined so in the case that a program vs a person is "found" there are clear rules to how this is handled.
  • Multiboxing is pay to win, theres no ifs or buts. The fact that ONE player can bring serveral characters and out dps a legit player with only one character is paying to be stronger.
    Aswell as being able to gather more resources with several character, as Steve said in the last AMA. Resource nodes can be gathered by several characters before dissapearing, so running around multiboxing and gathering resources will be another way multiboxing is paying to win.
    Multiboxing can also be exploited in pvp, as said before some healing classes will have passive AOE healing auras. How convinent for a multiboxer to create several of these classes and stack these healing auras, this will become an issue in pvp.
    Multiboxer will become a requirements for serious pvp guilds once a few guilds starts to do it, if its good to do in a competitive pvp enviorment people will do it to win. Specially in these castle seiges we're seeing, something that seems very similar to what in BDO, any exploit or advantage people could use in that game was used to win, if Intpreid is straight up letting people paying to win in this fashion people will, and guilds that might look into trying to enter the castle seige scene will be discouraged from doing so.
    Its going to be so much easier for Intrepid to not allowing multiboxing from the start, it will make people against multiboxing happy, and 99% of the people who votes for allowing multiboxing wont even use multiboxing, so it wont matter, but that tiny 1% whos going to multibox can get fucked and go play another mmo that allows it.
  • Sudri wrote: »
    Having plenty of active in-game GMs being vigilant for multi-boxing would be the best thing to do on top of additional restrictions. My advice is do NOT have a "/follow" command at all. "Choo-Choo Trains" of players is not good especially for a game that has relies so much on a functional economy. It ruins games and especially economies.

    I'm largely indifferent on the topic of autofollow, but I will say that it is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of every gaming parent. As a parent you will have to AFK and autofollow means not having to ask everyone in your group to wait for you to return from what might be a 5 second spider escort mission or a 45 minute bathroom sterilization and emergency load of laundry. In parenting, the cues that one of these things needs to be done can be very similar.

    In the interest of mitigating the potential economic hardships multiboxers could theoretically cause, I suggest an alternate solution. Rather than taking a stand against multiboxing, which is only one vector, we attack the problem at the root: We disallow transfer of items and resources between characters. Hear me out! If there are concerns that one person with multiple accounts will destabilize the economy, imagine the harm that could be done with a person that controls not just multiple accounts, but multiple people. Guild leaders have more power at their disposal than even multiboxers do, so we must stop this scourge before hypothetical and ambiguous economic harm is caused. But getting rid of guilds isn't enough! People might exploit a loophole where there is no formal guild. The only way to be safe is to disallow all transfer of resources between characters. I'd like to think that we could leave in transfers between characters on the same account, but other arguments insist that a single player having the ability to master all tradeskills will destroy the economy too, so we have to play it safe.

    I'm honestly not sure if sarcasm tags are appropriate for this. I mean, yes, there is a little bit of hyperbole, but honestly the problem posed by multiboxers is so trivial compared to what organized groups of independently functioning players can do that I'm not sure this actually is sarcasm. Different people have different goals, different means to achieve those goals, and different constraints on what they are willing to do. Attacking a player's means (what they are able to do) does nothing to change their motivation (what they want to do). Worse, removing means rebalances the ethical framing (what they are willing to do). One potential outcome is that people decide they are no longer willing to play the game. Loss of players is an economic problem that can't be fixed with rebalancing spawn rates. On the other, you may find that people are willing to resort to outright market manipulation, to include ganking (probably via proxy) anyone seeking to produce certain resources that hasn't paid their protection money for the week. If your problem is people destabilizing an economy, you need to address the fact that people want to destabilize the economy, not the fact that some people have multiple accounts. Honestly, I don't actually think it is that large of a problem, especially given how much system design still has to be done, but solutions should address problems, not people. Looking at Eve Online, the real damage isn't caused by multiboxers, but by leaders of large groups of people.

    At the risk of getting political, you can frame this issue as a minority group being punished for the hypothetical intent of some of its members, while ignoring the same offenses committed by members of the majority. That is widely recognized as being wrong and perhaps we need better solutions.
  • DaRougarouxDaRougaroux Member
    edited July 30
    xXBelocXx wrote: »
    Sorcres wrote: »
    I agree with multiboxing from separete computers, because some familly are playing together. But i am scared about people who Have more that one computer and Will be abuse this advantage for your own benefit.

    And see this is the challenge. From a technical perspective if they are two different computers and two different accounts, regardless if they come from the same source IP you have no way to determine if the same person is behind both keyboards or if its two people. So other than detecting repetitive (and I use this generically) keystrokes or other methods to detect "keystroke/macro" programs, people will multibox so I think it is good that a policy is being determined so in the case that a program vs a person is "found" there are clear rules to how this is handled.

    That is the issue . Separating the families playing together from the jerks trying to one up everyone and thus destroying the economy.
  • AntVictusAntVictus Member
    edited July 30
    Having played other games where MB (multiboxing) has been annoying (and almost always lead to accounts being sold), I cannot in good conscience not talk about it. Economies get messed with by them (worse by bots), experiences get ruined (getting 1 shot by some dick that is using 4+ at the same time), and the break of immersion. Not all MBers are bad, hell I know someone who was doing it to power level his sons account (but again this was from different computers and there was a follow action that was taking place). My whole issue is with the assclowns that do it with more than 1 account and essentially (and realistically) have the power of 5 toons wrapped into one.

    Regardless of the stance one might have on this topic, MB (the way 90% of people view it) is done by someone using hardware links or software to control the other accounts a majority of the time. This essentially makes it another form of botting, but botting en masse and it's almost always (as stated previously) done using 3rd party something....automation or mirroring is not the same as sitting down and pressing a button manually at a different keyboard or alt tabbing to another window to do something, as it's automated and 9/10 is macro'd to a specific button press. Obviously scripting and such is against is against tos.

    At the end of the day i've always seen MB as something whales did, my stance on this hasn't lessened but evolved into "whales and RMT's" after a couple years.

    Regardless of my standing on the situation, I know full well that @StevenSharif and the rest at IS will do what they can to limit fuckery. As will most of us if we suspect that it's not MB, and assisted bots instead.
  • CurrentCurrent Member
    This isnt a black or white issue, u cant just say fine, no one on earth will be able to play more then 1 character at any given time. This is not posible to do. With 1 exception, a GM has direct access to your webcam, which will be mandatory, looking at you and your game, everytime you play. The game can be designed so it makes it very hard to do anything effective with more then 1 character at same time however. Limiting scripts/macros and things of that nature.
  • PriestonPrieston Member
    I think the stance is a pretty good compromise, however, I don't want the meta to become parking multiple accounts across the world to spy or use multiple accounts to hog resources.
  • GarmagonGarmagon Member
    edited July 30
    sestra wrote: »
    Are there options to ban it completely? Because i don't see it :neutral:

    Yes, the one that says you disagree with ANY forms of multiboxing.

    But this is not a solution for the problem. People will be getting bans because they want to play on one wi-fi. People will just stop playing if they will get insta banned.
  • While I chose the "disagreed the decision to allow any multiboxing" I also don't know of any way to enforce it.

    I have watched friends do true multiboxing with 2 computers, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc. Watching them juggle using 2 sets of keyboards and mice was frequently hilarious when they would mix them up. They were however legitimately running 2 characters even if I found the motive to be a bit suspect (that being either power leveling the other toon or running around with a buffbot)

    In the end, while it would be great if there was no way to multibox, realistically the most reasonable stance is probably what IS is already doing.

    isFikWd2_o.jpg
  • KonzetsuKonzetsu Member, Braver of Worlds
    I feel that the game should go in the direction of not having a need to have multiple accounts. I don't want there to be a benefit from multiple characters, such as a labor system or being able to trade things to your main account that give a noticeable benefit that you can not achieve with just one character. I know that enforcement of multiboxing is hard to handle, and you don't want to accidentally flag multiple people in one house playing at the same time. The easiest way to solve it would just to balance the games functions to be the most beneficial to just play on one account.
  • JuvensJuvens Member
    I thought about this for a little while and I have some concernes if multiboxing were to be allowed.

    Potential benefits for a multiboxer in AoC:

    * More freeholds/player housing and the potential benefits from it.
    * Gathering more recourses at once like veins that can be farmed multiple times or farming mobs much faster.
    * Can control more than 1 character in combat, reaping the benefits from multiple abilities, buffs, cc's, debuffs, dots etc. Being able to summon an army of skeletons/zombies etc.
    * Can surround yourself with lvl 1 non-combatant characters in combat, forcing other players to become corrupted.
    * Teleport to keypoints around the world, or mass teleport to one character.
    * Can run multiple characters for mayor in different nodes or even in the same contest at the same time (looking at you millitaristic node).
    * Not needing a group or interact with others to complete more difficult challanges.

    How to combat multiboxing if it were to be bannable:

    * Make it easy to report multiboxing
    * Must provide evidence in form of recording/screenshots of obvious attemts of multiboxing. Everyone can record today with low effort for free.
    * Active GM's


    My biggest concern will be the combat against multiboxers. Being able to buff yourself without the need for other players is one thing, but if you are a good multitasker you can reap the benefit from multiple cc's, dots or debuffs. What if you are able to summon skeletons/zombies/whatever to create an army from multiple necromancers? Or continuing the combat with your other characters right away when your main dies. This sounds to me like you can never win a 1v1 against a multiboxer.
    But imagine if you encounter someone who is surrounded by multiple lvl 1 non-combatant characters all the time. Or getting multiple lvl 1 characters into your aoe/cleave/proximity abilities. Then he can actively force you to become corrupted. I like the corrupt system very much and to me it sounds like a conscious decision to become corrupted or not. Multiboxers are in a position to make that decision for you.


    As of the current state of the game these are the obvious benefits/exploits I can see from just running multiple accounts on different computers by the same person at the same time. It takes some cash to make this happen (but I'm sure there are multiple people on every server who will do it), therefore making it more beneficial the bigger your wallet is. It might not be p2w in the traditional fashion by microtransactions, but definitely touching upon the subject. Imo a good game is supposed to be fair and affordable, and to create an equal playing field for everyone. Your irl bank account should not have a say in how successful you can be in any game. I can just go outside if I want that feature.


    I'm sure there are more ways to exploit multiboxing that I haven't thought of yet, and imagine the ripple effect this will have in the world of AoC if it were allowed. Or the headache of the devs who always need to have multiboxing in mind to balance the game. There are so many good and unique systems that has to be changed, tweaked or removed to take the benefits away from multiboxing and I don't like the sound of that.
    This game looks very promising and I can't wait to try it. But multiboxing is one thing that can ruin the whole experience for me if I get beaten by it. Even if you need multiple computers, or not allowing macros/shared input, people will find an effective way to do this and the benefits are just too overwhelming to compete against for a person with only one computer.
    Will I need multiple computers and accounts to be able to compete with the best? If so, this is not the game I've been waiting for.
  • xXBelocXxxXBelocXx Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    xXBelocXx wrote: »
    Sorcres wrote: »
    I agree with multiboxing from separete computers, because some familly are playing together. But i am scared about people who Have more that one computer and Will be abuse this advantage for your own benefit.

    And see this is the challenge. From a technical perspective if they are two different computers and two different accounts, regardless if they come from the same source IP you have no way to determine if the same person is behind both keyboards or if its two people. So other than detecting repetitive (and I use this generically) keystrokes or other methods to detect "keystroke/macro" programs, people will multibox so I think it is good that a policy is being determined so in the case that a program vs a person is "found" there are clear rules to how this is handled.

    That is the issue . Separating the families playing together from the jerks trying to one up everyone and thus destroying the economy.

    100%. Its going to happen and not having a clear policy in place for WHEN its found to be malicious just leads to more issues and problems in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.